The order, dated 24-6-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was rejected on the ground that its presentation by the lawyer was not proper.
2. The finding appears to be correct. Grievance notice is, dated 20-8-1984, The petition was presented by the lawyer on 19-2-1984. The appellant appeared in person for the first time on 19-11- 1984, whereas the period of limitation for the proper presentation of the grievance) petition had expired on 3-11-1984.
3. It has been argued by the learned representative of the appellant that the notice of the miscellaneous application of the respondent was not given, nor any opportunity of production of evidence was affored on the point. The argument has no force. In the presence of the learned representative application for rejection of the grievance petition was given on 24-6-1985 and arguments of both the parties were heard. If the learned representative of the appellant wanted to file reply to the petition and to produce evidence, he could have asked the Court but it was not done. It is thus clear that the learned representative contended himself with advancing arguments on the point. He was fully heard, so now cannot say that no opportunity of reply and hearing was given.
4. The other argument of the learned representative is that orders were announced without preparing and singing the same. In this respect he has cited PLD 1976 Lah. 1162. This is true that it has been held therein that like other Courts the judgments of the Labour Courts should be announced after they have been prepared and signed but the defect is not beneficial to the appellant. The only result will be to direct the learned lower Court to prepare the judgment and to announce it after signing the same. Since the learned representative has got full opportunity of hearing before this Tribunal, it will be of no avail if the case is sent back for recording of judgment.
5. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. However, the learned lower Court is directed to announce the decisions in future after signing them.